A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday made it more difficult for Americans to sue businesses for discrimination and retaliation, leading one justice to call for Congress to overturn the court’s actions.

The court’s conservatives, in two 5-4 decisions, ruled that a person must have the power to hire and fire someone to be considered a supervisor in discrimination suits, making it harder to blame a business for a co-worker’s racism or sexism. The court then decided to limit how juries can decide retaliation lawsuits, saying victims must prove employers would not have taken action against them but for their intention to retaliate.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote both dissenting opinions and in a rare move read one aloud in the courtroom, said the court had “corralled Title VII,” the portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 designed to stop discrimination in the workplace.

“Both decisions dilute the strength of Title VII in ways Congress could not have intended,” said Ginsburg, who called on Congress to overturn the ruling.

In one case reviewed by the court, Maetta Vance, who was a catering specialist at Ball State University, accused a co-worker, Shaundra Davis, of racial harassment and retaliation in 2005. Vance sued the school under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming the university was liable since Davis was her supervisor. But a federal judge threw out her lawsuit, saying that since Davis could not fire Vance, she was only a co-worker, and since the university had taken corrective action, it was not liable for Davis’ actions.

But Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, said for the university to be liable, Davis must have had the authority to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline” Vance.

Attorney Jennifer Robinson of labor law firm Littler Mendelson in Nashville said the key to the decision focuses on vicarious liability, or the liability imposed on an employer based on a subordinate’s actions.

“I have always made the argument that co-workers are not typically subject to vicarious liability,” she said. “This is a strong statement by the U.S. Supreme Court that they will reject those arguments,” she said.

However, Non Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, said, “The Supreme Court majority has imposed heavier burden for victims of workplace harassment and discrimination seeking justice in our courts. This decision makes it far easier for employers to evade responsibility for discrimination and harassment in the workplace.”